Conscientious human beings should not limit their consciousness to matters of survival. This blog empowers those with conscience whilst enhancing the conscious. It is my mission to prove that my most bitter enemies are my friends. If I achieve that in life, I have been truly human.

Tag Archives: prophets

Never entirely sure why I receive certain impulses, there was a nagging feeling that I needed to publish this on America’s “Memorial Day“. Perhaps it was the sense of anger at “order” attempting to press-gang me into remembering those I didn’t ever know. How is that possible; to remember something that wasn’t experienced? Besides, the fallen didn’t die for me personally. Far from it. They behaved recklessly, some committing murder to protect the coveted few of the time; the elites that pariah off corporate infrastructures. Mind you, at least American judiciaries don’t follow Austria’s lead who, upon instruction of internal law, may likely illegally abduct and imprison high profile publishers of responsible criticism of irrational (and otherwise nonsensical) wittering that corresponds as the official history of an episode colloquially promoted as “the Holocaust”. But, of course, anything that reinforces Israel’s case is a-okay.

Producing voluminous, more substantial articles these days, when lacking project inspiration I generally refer to an “in progress or to be written” folder located under my computer’s document file explorer. The title I selected this time round had lain dormant for years. It intrigued me to see how my style had changed, by how much I had grown or shrunk, as the case may be. The original title “The Root of Social Grooming” was somewhat truncated and this, I think, adequately highlights my changed perspective. Albeit embellished in places now, the signature paragraph (formulated all those years ago) does make ample preparation for what is to follow. Even though I missed that critical Memorial Day deadline, without further ado, here is what I had to say back in 2014.

“Democracy will never work when underlying principles are built on exclusion rather than inclusion. Laws that don’t underscore prohibition, impose [just as well]. Secular privileges are given to those with diplomatic [status] and others [that parasite off the apparatus]. This [phenomenon] has [caused] creation of the social divides that [naturally] encourage Racism and other [regressive] symptoms. There is no doubt [in my mind that] this has been a deliberate strategy. Given the enormous weight of responsibility required to effectively ensure dedicated impartiality, it is all too clear royal status was originally foisted on wise men and women. [In light of human fallibility], it [proved] a responsibility too great to bear and, eventually, [ensured] recruited blasphemers [whose conceit] arbitrarily discerned “God’s wishes” [sic] whether they parried with social equilibrium [backed off natural order] or not. After extended periods of tyranny, eventually royals were called to task [for this] and clerics produced mandates outlining reasoned constitutional representation. These systems became known as constitutional monarchies and [they] are the fairest democratic processes of government.”

People like to blame others for their woes, because applying responsibility almost invariably exposes personal error as the main cause for issue. On occasions when truth does lend towards the conspiratorial shall we say, as is the case with routine pollution and certain [unarguably toxic] medications, coherent competency rarely attributes basis. Individuals, it seems, are drawn to propagandas generated by consensuses like flies to the dung heap. If the great group says it is so then it must be so, so it will be so, by their reckoning. This amply summarises the crisis of social grooming. “Denial” of truth is the commonest and starkest symptom of “fundamentalism”. Consensus view beneath corporate standards more than adequately abridges a modern way of domineering dogmatism, whereby explanations replace avenues to seasoned logic. Jon Rappoport’s raucous alarm calls aimed at the education system (I expect his article to be reinstated by WordPress) barely begin to highlight just how deep rooted social apathy has become. But for the bubbling internet, revelations of sovereign mind today would have zero influence on the manner of how things are presented or reflected on.

In effect (accorded by politics), a dichotomy of tyrannies punctuates the rights of the few over the wrongs of the many. The Magna Carta’s early assault on common law wasn’t enough. So veraciously hostile were forces of evil, later aristocrats and merchants alike scrambled for protection against Cromwell’s foul legacy, which is the austere Westminster System of course. William of Orange became the fortuitous angel of mercy. But their appreciation of tyranny didn’t cease as a consequence. The peoples’ constitution (if it could be argued so) was shredded in 1864 in preparation for the beginnings of popular slavery (liberally recorded as emancipation) under aggressivelytiered society.

“Terms” for the masses (slaves) were finally aggregated in 1929 by the Geneva Convention at around the same time bankers’ were able to soundly conspire from their newly formed historic capital, “the Vatican”. Why are those hauled before the American courts presumed guilty until “proven” innocent (celebrating French bankers’ multi-lateral autonomy after both republics commenced in 1789)? This is because every American national (of ill-breeding) is deemed a criminal. And that Fifth Amendment salvation so often referenced is strictly for the nobles. As Great Britain (or, notably, Ireland) has been the informal Promised Land since time memorial, her chosen peoples are considered innocent until proven guilty by the corresponding system of justice. But Britannia ruled far more than the waves, for the rest of the world had gradually submitted to maritime law long ago.

Of course along the journey that is branded civilisation by historians, elitist empowering double standards are all too numerous to list, but there is one deception of such far reaching magnitude it begs to be exposed in glorious detail. If Genesis’ Adam and Eve parable was conceded as truth, everyone (“one race”, if you will) is Jewish by birthright. Yet, the reality accords the promotion of acute covert xenophobia towards anyone who isn’t Jewish (per alleged successive bloodline integrity). “Values” that became laws governing humanity are almost exclusively theirs. Consequentially, many social go-getters, such as, for instance, the unlikely Sammy Davis Junior, have converted to the insincere faith to “get on”. The stakes of occultism are high, as to be expected. New Jewish citizens (paying homage to homeland – Israel) are forced to enrol all male offspring, under crude auspices of dignity, into a ceremony colloquially known as the Bris.

For reasons that might only be judged as bizarre by the right minded, infant star of each gathering is guaranteed to lose his penal foreskin without refund. Now, given the unholy reaction to one of my prior articles here that [according to one accuser] “reveres” the practice of paedophilia, I am flabbergasted by the lack of venom directed towards any Jew (synthetic or otherwise) who participates in the callous Bris culture. I use the word “callous” with great care here. Is a baby consulted and fully aware of folly ahead or is this a somehow “legitimised” violation of body rights, a strange exception to the fundamental rule of personal sovereignty? Why aren’t there any salacious headlines? Wouldn’t one expect to see “Sadistic Infant Penile Display Centre Stage in Sick Pedo Jew Cult Orgy” or the like smeared over the front pages? If it was the Catholics doing this; would they deserve any less? Why do we all “know” (sic) Catholic [priests] must be paedophiles? Why, because we have been programed to think thatand we’ve been programed to believe the Bris and circumcision are A-Okay too.

“Great” Jewish newspapers, of the prestige of Haaretz or the Times of Israel make little fuss of the affair, but confusingly, outside the club, there is an (albeit ultra-orthodox), I must say, vile practice or fetish that receives almost no attention at all (i.e. absent from non-Jewish tabloids). How many of my readers are aware of a Rabbi’s certified (or, perhaps, certifiable)“suction clean”, I wonder? So, to elaborate on the process for those less informed, any other vaguely comparable uses of “suction clean” terminology would certainly better appraise as blowjob for mere mortal comprehension. Crude but appropriate or, rather, I mean inappropriate. Thinking of those possible headlines again, how does “Boy Loving Pedo Rabbi Gives Bad Baby Deep Throat” (well you know how these Medias like to exaggerate) fit the criteria? It is funny how God issues an “unacceptable” foreskin, but man is far more divine than God, wouldn’t you say?

Therefore, I assume my revised headline suggestion would be fine, except there’s something else we should consider. You see, in this case blood’s involved, so forget the Jewish thing. We’ve moved to a whole new level. Instead, let’s imagine we are dealing with a Catholic archbishop here, who must be guilty (because we believe that). I see no reason why a banner mightn’t reasonably read “Sick Sadistic Catholic Cult’s Gay Gore Orgy Reptilian Priest Drinks Baby Blood Raw”. Then again, what of those herpes cases in New York?

Oh brother, very hush-hush

Ah the joys of satire! That said, circumcision is a very serious topic. God gave me my foreskin and I celebrate it. Those that argue otherwise are vainly obsessed. We only need to look at incessant mass Media venom directed at disgracefully lampooning strict Islamic practices to see evidence of this obsession. Remember those elitedouble standards I mentioned earlier. How is the circumcision of a female any different to the male? Either the act itself is deplorable or it is acceptable. But at least for abject followers of Mohamed, circumcision is theoretically “optional”. Mass Medias highlight duplicitous contradiction; which is the natural consequence of social grooming.

Truth is invariably adrift of broadsheet fantasy, but there are some encouraging exceptions to the rule. Here it could be said fair attention is given to distinctly parallel violations of Muslim women, yet (beyond very occasional warnings dressed as “politically correct” philosophic procrastinations) no attempts are ever made to stress the plight of unguarded marginalised males. Behind the curtain, there is fallout of course. The epidemic is such one Jewish woman (of presumably many) tearfully reached out to me at Jon Rappoport’s blog, explaining how her son’s pain from his circumcision has persisted throughout his life with no possibility of moral refund.

Nevertheless, the foremost “out in the open” dishonesty is the role of world governments and their ongoing missions. The reason political machinations never seem to improve is they were designed that way. They were designed to fail, from the social perspective. After Albert Einstein, either doing the same thing over while expecting improved change equates to insanity, or “makeno difference to the way things are” is the overall anticipated goal of policy making. Politics are fundamental. Decisions are bound up in constitutions which (albeit theoretically) script foundations for utopian order. Amendments to the US constitution, sticklers might debate; cause all outward political problems for that nation. I say the constitution was rigged from the onset and reasoning is clear.

But you have to go back to dot to précis the real issue with popular (i.e. majority rule) population administration. Undoubtedly foundations which have become the hubris for modern world government are encapsulated by Oliver Cromwell’s Westminster System. (Ignoring the exported Dutch mortgage system) why was second class aristocrat William of Orange (incidentally, his daughter, Queen Anne, was a reputed lesbian. Lesbians are regularly the product of physically, emotionally or “character” scarred fathers) ushered into British supreme authority if the constitution (adjunct to the Westminster System) was irrefutably “stable”? Maybe the highly irregulardual headed coinage of the realm conceals some secrets as well.

Nouveaux nobility (a fraternity of merchant bankers) hastily drafted theirbill of rights because, after recalcitrant King James II, they were demonstrably exposed as vulnerable (I referenced the jailing of William Dockwra before, but there were many, many other attacks on “treasonous” private commerce) as royalty had proven far from defeated after Charles I’s infamous beheading execution. The double edged sword of success viciously turned on the perpetrators of the French Revolution as well (its leader and other key players suffered the nobleman’s guillotine fate). Some would say “karma had its day”, but [ultimately] the lesson to be learned here is those that wield draconian standards are forced to live by them too. And the closer you are to the source of heat, the greater your chances of being burnt.

Legal due process oils hearsay dressed as evidence in our courts. Will re-emergence of medieval torture (currently in the form of legitimised psychological terrorism) come at a hefty price to its backers?

As I regularly outline; the United States of America was established with a view to becoming a template of the French system of government (symbolised by the Statue of Liberty) and not the other way round. Be it the continent was a constitutional democracy 1766-88. Phoenician rebirth of combined great Greek/Roman (liberators of Rome for justice) dynasties had been the plan all along. That is why, in typical fashion, Napoleon seized absolute control just as Caesar had done before him and, arguably, (Aristotle favourite) Alexander had done before him. Britain had no mitigating royal authority at the time of the revolution, so America “the enterprise” is the greatest untold conspiracy never to be explored. King George of England was a foreigner who spoke little more than nodding English. The issue that blew up into a war was between powers that “vampired” off regal infrastructures and those who opted for self-sufficiency, which is amply highlighted by renegade “journalist” John [Peter] Zengler’s successful defence of a libel lawsuit against Royal Governor of New York, William Cosby (is that why they attack Bill Cosby today?) in 1734.

Miscasting of historic myths is a classical manoeuvre of those committed to perverting truth in order to impress upon social grooming. In more ancient times religions were a vehicle sometimes used to ridicule truth and deny sovereign faith. Circumcision is an undeniable direct attack on God (supporting that which is natural), but I find no reference to the fact in the Torah. Because religion began to lose its potence (the authorities drafted a new Bible in 1884 in an attempt to jump start Christianity once more) with so much global upheaval, since the French Revolution, the task of bending truth has been handed to “science”. That is why today learned professionals are “split” for and against vaccines, marking mainstream and anti-mainstream territories.

How can there be any debate on this though? The truth is plain and out in the open, but far from simple. Aluminium, supplied to vaccines via Eli Lily’s branded product Thimerosal, causes brain damage. The symptom autism is a configurable consequence. There are other plausible associated conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease. Here’s where complexity is noted. Often combinations of factors will impress varied disease symptoms. Wireless 5G illness is an odd one, but in the specific cases of autism and Alzheimer’s, the underlying (or root) cause is aluminium poisoning. When there are multiple factors determining potential outcomes of any political argument, it becomes easy to subvert the path away from honest realisation. Oil is blamed for Iraq, but the war had little to do with the petroleum industry. That was the cover story. Indeed, the “powers” know that if they do not move away from fossil fuels soon, humanity is done for. In fact, as I illustrate in this article, all cancers are caused by carbon pollution.

Politics is all about consensus view (or, rather, the manufacture of it). Science and religion are the same, with two distinct exceptions. Religion is anchored to Scripture which, fanatics assert, is Word of God. This is easily disproven, of course. We only need to open our Bibles to discover numerous contradictions on offer when evidence that summarises prophets’ revelations is scrutinised carefully. God apparently allows and disallows certain practices; verdicts depending on timely cultural persuasions. Yet, jesting aside, a calculating, divisive God is a duplicitous one. Science, almost identically, regularly serves up contradictory “proof” as justification for dogma.

These wibbly-wobbly proofs are sometimes sensationally disproven. For some “products” bitter cognitive dissonance needs to be challenged many times over before evil ones are forced to prostrate before the light. Neither Scripture nor proof, it seems, are very reliable. That is perhaps why they have combined in unison today. Both sciences and religions’ output asserts what amounts to principled belief in doctrines “supposedly” backed by evidential proof. Though it logically belonged to Jacques De Molay (attesting his crucifixion by Catholicism), the so-called Turin Shroud is “officially” evidence of Jesus’ (who didn’t exist, by the way) life and death. This is because, the once Hitler IG Farben cyanide gas salesman, Pope John Paul II was all too quick to upgrade the dubious (according to prior editions of the Catholic encyclopaedia) “fact” in spite of the facts (couched in known origins of the exhibit).

If the world’s great superpower USA was modelled on Rome (forget Israel) why wouldn’t the Vatican be nucleus of authority?

Thinking of an unlikely analogy that summarises social conditioning, I am impressed by the subtle interpretive differences between recklessness and bravery. In respect to this, modern day mass Medias are ceaseless in their assault of valour. Cowardice will never be bravery, but so often this is purported as truth. In deference to a submissive death, a victim must be brave, they claim. Is it because preservation of life happens to be the most significant clause of their subliminal “survival of the fittest” manifesto? In that regard, another noteworthy manifesto titbit asserts the belief that people will be consistently devoted to deceitful subversion in ego threatening situations, which would justify the system’s perennial need for disciplined shepherds to guiderighteous flocks. It further highlights why people are treated as though they were cattle commodities by these overseers.

When citizens lost their natural rightto be sexual, their lives were transferred to state. Relative scamPaedophilia is a philosophic foundation stone that projects hybrid standards which rely on comprehensive groomed compliance. In other words, without foundation beliefs, supporting synthetic reason would wither into oblivion and the cattle would roam free. An extension of this façade is people must truthfully worship their Gods for persuasion to transform intoreality. Understanding the mindset is vital to decoding how corridors of power visualise authority. Thus, if ruling authorities are Godlike, they must be faultless. Correspondingly, the system is beyond criticism, but individuals, “bad prophets” if you will, are very much in the spotlight and may be sacrificed to preserve unblemished credibility. Pedo priests, by that token, won’t tarnish institutional Catholicism.

Back in Roman times, rulers painfully observed successful policy was inexorably linked to popularity (usually supported by in vogue Gods). From today’s bloated populations for those with sufficient resources, it is easy to manufacture fabricated consensuses. Menacingly, in conjunction, a form of censorship disparages thinking outside or beyond traditional guidelines. A cult, which is a gestalt made from materialistic, atheistic and hybrid Judaic ideologies, acts as counterbalance, paving the way for all established rules that attribute what is justifiably “credible”. Atheism, in the usage here, isn’t presented as a religious connotation per se, or even a system arbitrating divinity. It would be better, instead, reviewed as an appendage of materialism. The two concepts are inseparably grafted together. Terms or understanding attempting to cultivate non-physicality, particularly anything spiritual, are the critical casualty of the union. In their ideal world, associated zealots would outlaw anything that obstructs or contradicts perception validating physicality (though paradoxical string theorists see the illusion well). By their lofty ideals, if God was to exist, “He” must be tangiblysolid.

After in depth study of history, one can but draw the conclusion that a seam of vexatious law brokers has plagued humanity from the dawn of time. Ineffective (and sometimes destructive) rules are regularly demanded of simply to “organise” the rabble. In past writings I have highlighted the Pharisees as the significant culprit. Given this is an Easter project; it would be remiss of me not to at least reference bonny Jesus, who constantly buffered against puritanical high priests lacking common sense and honest dignity. Suffice to say, grooming is a vital symptom of society, which, from the true utopian perspective, should concur with universal selflessness, even if by being selfless could also mean being selfish too. Medieval fanatics undeniably misinterpreted this divine instrumental purpose. Self-flagellation achieves nothing unless the group benefits by some means. When fear and manipulation are routine tools (or cattle prods) used to control consensus society, individual rite is rendered superfluous and might be viewed as a threat to order.

The effect aggregates a strange symptom. Consequentially, “structure” will eventually stagnate (euphemised as populations waking up) because the ego must rationalise to survive. Zombie state reflects the individual that is prisoner of order; wandering in a waking death, which fundamentally explains why such relatively large percentages of populations turn to crime. They reject order to live. Even the supposedly most innocent amongst us are actually as guilty as sin in some ways. Conflicting laws are not observed by anyone safely way from the spotlight. Reasoning of our holier than thou brethren deems some crimes are more criminal than others. Indeed a prior article of mine “The Law is an Ass” comprehensively outlined the basic problem. Which is the umbrella justice system reflects austere bias so it simply isn’t just.

In so much, the concept of justice was established to cajole society in favour of the few

For instance, murder is the supposed capital offense, yet I find not a single nation against war. Even strategic financial centres too cowardly to participate don’t morally block wilful destruction of life (particularly when they skim the racket). Beyond commercial politics, the justice system actually seems to be more in place to obstruct an individual’s rite of passage than promote proscribed “good”. Arbitration of sexuality is probably the best example to demonstrate what “under law” really means. Per legislation, individual rite most definitely cannot be used as an acceptable excuse for violation of law. I have mentioned before, and it cannot be repeated often enough that, from the divine “cosmic” perspective, sexuality doubles as “life potence” (generated by the base chakra). Break life potence (through arbitrative control of sexuality) and you own a slave; only a breath away from fully fledged zombiism.

Fortunately the youth of today aren’t easily subdued. Sex drive is as powerful as ever, regardless of the many and regular attempts by insidious mass Medias to obfuscate reality. Fundamental attacks on sexual expression (and freedom) actually stretch back to the dawn of time. Currently paedophilia may well be the sin of the moment, but in other ages, cultures targeted varied peccadillos. “Apostle” and Pharisee “St Paul” (who has doubled as people’sfirst pope) championed total prohibition of intimacy. Even under terms of marriage, he argued carnal relations were theoretically sinful. Expanding persuasion of this devious fraud, Jesus is remembered as a “natural” manifest virgin, reinforced by his immaculate birth.

Furthermore, theological authorities make it dreadfully clear his genius was not a consequence of spiritual purity but, rather, the “reward” for preserving virgin status (following mother Mary) throughout his life. Purity, by their deceitful account, implies any universal celibate might match Jesus’ standards (a Pharisaic notion) simply by rejecting intimacy (commonly illustrated by overtly mocking the “devil”). Of course the reality flies in the face of this nonsense. Jesus (a pseudonym of Joseph ben Matthias) took Joseph of Aramithea’s daughter Mary “Magdalene” (who purists imply was a “whore” for daring to taint the Messiah’s reputation) as his wife (that culture would have permitted only a wife to wash/anoint the feet of her spouse in company – John 12:1-8). There may have been offspring to the marriage; whose descendants would become the Merovingian kings (the great Catholic threat). One investigative account supporting this conviction is presented by Michael Baigent’s “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” (1982) and evidence selected is most compelling.

Whether contemplating deep past or modern day politics, there is a serious side to social apathy. Actually it’s a deadly serious side. Build enough pomp in support of institutional deceit and ill prepared perhaps naïve doctors will routinely administer poisons as “cures” to patients (remember those leeches?). But doctors are “just doing their job” as they kill you, right? The numerous celebrated examples of those who have “extended” their lives by opting out from being processed by the system, by refusing medications today, should hardly embarrass. That said, why limit the blame to doctors and medicine? Every car driver administers cancer causes, maybe not individually, but certainly as combined agent of a monstrous pack of polluters; polluters who generally don’t care by the way. And the price they pay for not caring is to lose their own natural health as well.

The problem is everyone suffers from and some die because of their arrogant ambivalence

Popular desensitisation towards life threatening truths I believe is evidence of the direct result of viscerally unfair political processes churning out laws geared only to improve Racist divisions (or to favour commercial lobbyists’ such as Pfizer’s, I hope I have that right, sex change therapy drugs for four year olds). There is no debate on certain unwholesome legislations which will either not be strictly observed by majorities or, in other instances, completely ignored. People reject these in the same manner as they deliberately avoid understanding real reasons behind everything. Indeed, they encapsulate an ongoing political conspiracy that consumes humankind. I find it greatly ironical that law breaking sycophants are still able to vote with open hearts and wail like babies when their chosentroll doesn’t make it. They outwardly pander to systemic government, taking advantage of all the “trappings”, whilst inwardly reviling dictating democracy, ever scheming as to the best way to avoid compliance.

For the creators of “order” to pull off their charade, there has to as much collusion between mass Media sirens and vested interests of Big Commerce as is possible. No better example of orchestrated faux crisis can be found than the ever regular fever pitch screams supposedly shining the spotlight on global epidemics whilst actually preparing sales of (commonly poisonous) medications. Enlightened ones will quickly see beyond the veneer, such as the swine flu “epidemic” which could only site a few dozen cases (and all of those, when detail is inspected with integrity, were dubious). Therefore “epidemics” exquisitely open up cultural insanity (maybe Einstein was forsaken after all?) at all levels and persuasions of society. By extension, an in vogue pioneer that labels something new, something formally undiscovered prior, apparently has divine authority to boycott criticism from branded undesirables. Bloated, and often obviously lacking, theories supporting “functionality” are routinely fed to wider populations, who invariably lap up whatever they are told. Once “knowledge tracks” are laid it takes an earthquake to uproot them and this is fundamentally why people are so easy to groom.

An extension of the grooming effect will regularly encourage recruits to go to extraordinary lengths to feign compliance with normalcy. Conventions are followed with such zeal, in some sorry cases, lives are shattered. Outward contradictions cannot whitewash over inner turmoil. That is why correspondingly high percentages of Western populations (in particular) are currently hooked on psychiatric drugs. Of course, as far as “Pharma” is concerned the human identity crisis is a perfect two way street to profits. Drugs they issue to solve the problem will more than likely make the patient either more ill or ill in a different way. That means more prescription drugs for the bad prescription drugs; yet more products sold to alleviate or patch up the problem caused by the “solution”; aptly complimenting the viciouscycle of ignorance. And we should not lose sight of the fundamental fact. It is not doctors or pharmaceutical cartels or wilful governments that instigate this mess. Cultural insanity is definitely fault of the user base; all you “shit eatin’” confident but pathologically ignorant users. You are the cause and the problem.

The invisible pig in lipstick “beyond confrontation” is you in front of the mirror every time you don’t bother to look

The good news is “they” (the self-assured powers) most decidedly see it and they count on your disability; otherwise they wouldn’t be able to manipulate and control you via populism. My analogic use of “pig” might seem overly harsh here. Yet, if I inspect what is being done to remedy the catastrophe that is order, I find nothing or next to no goodness. Pitiful protests do not affect change, but public ones will reveal who the grumblers are. Politicians and their puppeteers already know virtually no one has the guts to fight for lasting change on individual terms. Grumbling parasites are the closest we come to revolutionaries. These need to be prodded every now and again to show whose boss. Conversely, when governments appear to cave in to demands, well these protests are ones’ staged, orchestrated by George Soros or other members of the old boy network. And they are staged for good reason. How else to sell the most assiduous legislation?

Vegan terrorism is a classic example. Protests aren’t about empowering vegetarians. Motive is to disempower “the other” whilst saving that macabre Monsanto (lawsuit champion) Bayer alliance. Forcing useless meat eaters to consume unsanitary genetically modified product (Solent Green) has been the objective of operations all along. That’s why coverage of vegan values (sic) has found its way to the mainstream. Will it turn out it was yet another Soros brainchild when the powers’ brag in the alternative Medias? The planners and team leaders of the coup know the truth but everyone else plays useful sap, I assure you. Perhaps we are seeing a little karmic retribution here. Anyone prepared to be a terrorist deserves to be duped. There is no such thing as a cosy crusader. Idioms of that genre languish only in fantasy realms. No, in reality vicious activists are criminals in all but name. The subliminal battle rages over rightful ability to freely express and, more importantly, whether visibility of expression is granted. Of course, it is visibility which almost always is the first to suffer under scrutiny of activism. The other spineless defence they favour is the smear campaign (how about paedophilia to pack a punch?).

We are undoubtedly on the precipice of a new age of distortion. Was Jon Rappoport’s blog removed because he was to close to “Infowars'” Alex Jones for Trump comfort. Breitbart’s cozy period with the oval office seems to have soured these days. Nevertheless, Paul Craig Robert may well lament that sensational Media treatment of Julian Assange equates to the open death of freedom of speech, but I have maintained (and will continue to do so) that Assange is a (cocaine loving special friend of Ecuador) CIA strategic asset. Whether he knows his handlers on first name terms is the only point up for debate. Business partner of Mossad, CIA has its tentacles everywhere. This is mainly because Israel is extremely jealous of how successful the Vatican has been at securing the hearts of the people and will go to almost any lengths to destabilise cultural traditions. Pedo pop shots at senior clerics are the tip of that iceberg. In the information age people are inclined to believe anything laced with a modicum of authority delivered with sincerity (check out George Burns), which, unfortunately, takes us back to those cycles of manipulation through fear (terrorism, war, epidemics, censorship et al) tuned to incubategroomed socialites. Do not high profile bogus synagogue mass shootings (revered by capitulating mainstream Medias) appear to justify Israel’s “moral authority” before her people to bomb the heck out of Gaza by way of punishment (although some might scratch their heads as to “for what’)?

Perhaps, I read into that too much. Israel, it seems, will use just about any pretext to kill Arab peoples of Gaza. Nevertheless, leaders of Tyrannous nations are easy to blame for the crisis of social grooming, but supposed sovereign individuals must take some responsibility here as well. Fear and manipulation are simply levers of influence. Ultimately, individual choice concedes compliance. Fear and manipulation will remain while concessions are effective and continuous. Therefore, it is only when personal sovereignty is universally valued above anything else that controllers will be forced to reappraise “group think” strategies. To explain this philosophy, the notion that a vaccinated person is unprotected against the unvaccinated is intellectually preposterous. However, from “group think” perspective, “reason” takes a bold new form. If the “group” is vaccinated, flaws in the process highlight collective weakness. Unvaccinated, under these terms, are the flaws in the process. Thus “the group” is unprotected if but one individual fails to observe collective protocol.

There are some contradictions to this that are easy to explain “in perspective”. Autism as a “condition” is not discussed in reasoned terms by the mainstream because it represents vaccines’majorAchilles heel. Though statistics have rocketed from one in ten thousand to one in thirty per capita since its 1980’s “discovery” (actually a variation of Asperger’s syndrome or Schizophrenia, both forms of brain damage), these blemishes are very much in the minority. Therefore FDA (a toothless “internal” commercial watchdog misbranded as a government department) reputation remains spotless after ceaseless allegations (even by inside professionals) against certain products continue to plaque alternative Medias. From the “group think” perspective, under these circumstances, those that suffer autism must be defective and vaccines (if truly to blame) merely act as agent to stress their abnormality. Only when majorities are demonstrably afflicted, does the campaign fall in a heap. So here’s the contradiction. There have been innumerable pharmaceutical product recalls but, in most instances, the “batch” is judged as culprit. In the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia many years ago, it required only one alleged poisoning to justify recall of their entire paracetamol production run. Globally, instances of autism may run into hundreds of thousands (depending on statistical diagnosis), but to coin a phrase “nothing to see here” for reasons outlined.

If I conducted a poll from residents of my local street, I would be surprised if I was able to collect even one in a hundred that had heard of Eli Lily’s Thimerosal product. Rhetoric supporting “educated” mainstream vaccine awareness campaigns has been dedicated only to slander. Those that “don’t like” vaccines are painted pathological evil and scandalously ignorant (though explanation for ignorance is routinely absent), whereas those that are on the correct team are “normal”, good, virtuous “God fearing” people even. We must begin to realise that corporate Medias are, with scant exception, supported by pimps and hookers, and these vassals do not (by any means) deserve the title “journalist”. On rare occasions truthful truth rears its head in isolation, it is alwaysskew. Judaism undeniably influences mainstream content censorship measures. Indeed, so much so, some believe there are no other political interests balancing control (Christianity and Islam both versions of Judaism). Jews, regardless of status and location, today are classed as “People of Israel”. That is the only [real] reason most nations permit dual-citizenship.

Given his enormous status and favourably biased treatment “under society” (goyim), how [individually] sovereign is the average Israelite? I think the answer to that lies in circumcision. The Jew, without forethought, will deny God and barbarously deface his new born son to demonstrate allegiance to the group. That is the pitiful standard humanity swears by.

People that claim they are “open-minded” simply do not tell the truth. Belief systems are formed in the earliest developmental stages of life and, when set; each rehearsed dogma needs a battle to be disbelieved. Our core beliefs are usually so strong they will remain valid even when believers are convinced otherwise. “Oh, they told me UFO’s were real but I knew that wasn’t true” is your typical reverse validation. Deep down, if the message doesn’t fit it won’t fit no matter what. Therefore, I have one paragraph to capture the imaginations of an audience. You are allowed to reach out and, providing comments are not unnecessarily rude, criticism is welcome. It would be nice to know a few of you actually had the chutzpah “to be”.

Considering the sheer weight of information to be found on the net these days, if my message deviates an inch from those beliefs’ comfort zone, I’m gone, finished, put in the trash can, offended readers likely never to revisit. Some, due to narcissism, won’t even refer to “unknown sources” which assures logic assesses references as must bespurious. So, I lost them before I even put pen to paper. Articles with ambiguous or neutral titles are avoided perhaps because time poor people waste not, but as likely, given the mindset of psychosis, readers might also do everything in their power to avoid being confronted with truth. Truth, contrary to erudite populism, is inflexible and consistent. People, in general, do not want their opinions challenged or ruffled in any way, so factual legitimacy all too rarely finds sanctuary in popular theories.

It was the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that reputedly first coined the phrase conspiracy theorists in 1967; a slur aimed at faceless critics distributing “evidence lacking” conjecture. Any more than two parties that join forces conspire. All statements are theories. The expression, conspiracy theorists, would be acceptable when used as a witty metaphor camouflaging the derogatory attack on simple minded enemies. Targets are gossipers that peddle myths lacking substance. The term conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is ambiguous and nonsensical. Does this reflect statements that coordinate the joint efforts of multiple parties? If conspiracy is a euphemism for gossip, it is a poor one.

Nevertheless, the hybrid term is understood because it validates the mindset of psychosis, i.e. being right always trumps honesty and due diligence. Conspiracy theories, as labelled, can contain high levels of truth. We have already noted people like flexible authenticity and arbitrary verisimilitude. No black and white. Only shades of grey. Per faceless man reasoning, therefore, conspiracy theories should be avoided where possible. Back in the 1960’s I would like to think the majority of activists were sincere, their concerns just and their actions vigilant, whilst honourable. If this is correct, then logic dictates alternatives to official historic accounts were not frivolous. That philosophy doubtlessly has changed, for the internet has a down side. Sheer volume encourages mass production of the worse kind, bad habits and sloppiness. Views that contradict the mainstream can now be more corrupt than wayward accredited sources. We might find a suitable analogy in the espionage industry. Double agents are conceptually similar to “double conspiracy theories”.

Periodically, I reflect on something I call the human condition. Years ago, before I attempted to put thoughts to writing, perhaps forlorn, perhaps devout, I wandered the vast internet as a lonely hermit seeking identity for purpose. This journey look me before Jon Rappoport and, as a subscriber of his instructional blogs, I listen to what he has to say very carefully. We are not always in agreement on issues, but most of the time we are, well, the expression “of one mind” impresses me. Jon has asked me, us subscribers, to watch Sydney Lumet’s film “Network” more than once. Not a movies person, I reluctantly set aside 15 minutes discipline a week and have been gradually been working my way through the 2 hours of footage.

The central character is a disgruntled news broadcaster who first has a meltdown on air and then is picked up and promoted by unscrupulous elements looking to improve corporate ratings, which is an impeccable irony (e.g. the network’s toxic critic is their golden cash calf to salvation). Howard Beale exposes the inadequacies of news broadcasts reduced to fantasies that pander to “highest bidder” stakeholder interests better than our current best conspiracy theorists. Rather underwhelming his thunder, he asks his viewers to “do nothing” but just “get madder than hell”. Though the dialogue sizzles with strategically placed F bombs, a novelty for 1976, the movie cannot avoid overstating the human condition. Indeed Beale’s big soccer punch does nothing more than expose that television does not report, but rather politicises. In fact, he highlights ongoing deficiencies in the population at large by his own lack of remedial direction. The mindset of psychosis is an ocean of problems with no solution in sight. It should be no surprise that buoyant stagnancy is the only feasible response.

Beale made an example of those that read newspapers (we presume serious copy, rather than tabloid smut). A paltry slither of the populations at large was representative, but how many of those really understood and “delved”? We know, today, that newspapers cannot be trusted as well as all are either the mouthpieces of corporate advertisers or governments. Even books (that sell) are invariably written to support given opinions backing corporate or government interests, so to ascertain absolute neutrality (truth) is almost impossible.

I have only worked through an hour and a quarter so there is 45 minutes of movie unseen. There may be surprises to come, but, thus far, nothing has shocked me (though, back in 1976, this sort of overt criticism would have been very unusual and, in my limited scrutiny, I think watered down by any other vague comparisons). In exposing the deficiencies of the system, Beale inadvertently revealed two much greater defects in the populations at large. They (his followers), the script intimates, would not be prepared to revolt (to get mad is a form of protest). Their televisions’ make believe had largely become the basis for reality because of the academic redundancy of the majority. Neither did the people know any facts nor would they contemplate the issues in any meaningful way.

This, to the greater degree, correlates with today’s situation. Whereas the perceived total reliability of information offered by “the news” is not what it was, because people have such limited knowledge, the void is mostly populated by doubt. That means, of course, peoples’ familiarity with truth is more or less absent, so doubts simply fester, unchallenged for the most part. People judge “the news” on what sounds believable and not on merit. Of course, that which satisfies social programming (i.e. “education”, government/corporate standards, widely promoted philosophies that justify what it is to be socially acceptable) is delivered by the very same forces that engineer “the news”. So we have a self-perpetuating circle, broken only by geniuses (oracles that see beyond “the bubble”).

To a fashion this has encouraged a kind of mass psychosis which morphs as the mindset of populism. Though the mindset changes with political trends, the populist view is always activesanity even when reason or logic individually applied might demote certain views as insane. Thus, if the populist tradition is “vaccines are the sane choice”, to go against vaccines would be insanity, if that makes sense. Nevertheless, breakaways from the mainstream have calculated such a sizeable collection of swayable minds; it is noted that alternative dichotomies are strong enough to stand alone and, in that capacity, would usually predetermine that “sanity” is the precise opposite of the mainstreamers’ position. For alternatives, therefore, to back vaccines would be sheer insanity. The mainstream Media, as Jon Rappoport regularly illustrates, are masters at promoting populism. They control left and right, mainstream and alternative and everywhere in between. Only very occasional prophets (or geniuses, if you prefer), mostly misunderstood, remove the veil of hypocrisy.

The three main aspects of human character that drag group potential down to the gutter are greed, laziness and selfishness. These traits, particularly in the modern age, are the rule rather than the exception. This is partly because the true value of words has been deliberately twisted or obscured by corporate miscreants that direct mainstream Medias. Spinelessness, pusillanimity and treachery are celebrated as evidence of qualities purveying patriotism, virtue and honour. Devout cowards are regularly called brave. Oxymoron after oxymoron crafts normalcy. “The machine” wants submissive slaves, whining as they work and just about everyone obeys the system, hook, line and sinker. “The machine” wants sulking protestors. The more the merrier. You good peopleaffirm social apathy. You are not a threat to them and they will destroy you at their leisure.

The “filth”

Those that dare to take on the system never protest. They act wisely, cunningly and discretely, conjuring and deploying the most plausibly destructive, clandestine strategies against their foes. The “masses” great and only advantage is being “faceless”, so anonymity is strength. Corporate order knows this well and that is why their hired trouble makers are always in plain clothes when all-too-rarely in focus. In fact the powers have manufactured invisibility in industrial quantities. How many unknown government agencies or outsourced third parties have contributed to the all-encompassing globalist agenda of Zionism? Thinking laterally, are those [Skype and] e-mail scammers (banking shams, cheap medications and other rip-offs) the coordinated product of a consolidated “op” dedicated to manufacturing “mistrust of strangers”? If so, that would satisfy the wider interests of Zionism which has three fundamental wishes.

Family members must be held perpetually accountable. Public opinion is designed to gravitate around mainstream views calculated by the architects of our governance systems. Parents are both exalted and threatened. Pro-system whistle blowers, snitches, eves droppers are encouraged. Per this tyranny, children are commodities with no rights or personalities. As arbitrary tokens of justice, sensationalising the removal of children from bad broods is used to keep borderline recalcitrant families in line. For their part, families must systemise children. Parental, administrative (schools and so forth) oversight is crucial to the Zionist objective. There are no exceptions to diktat. There is no way out. Government is to be respected, feared or both and, as such, is answerable only to itself.

Mischievously deceptive hyperbole dressed as paedophilia, terrorism and intoxication has been used to paint “the stranger” into a corner. Bad parts of families that aren’t bad broods are rejects or black sheep. Estranged family members may as well be strangers. This all came about because “stranger” is used as a code word in the bible. The Hebrew word it replaces is “Goyim” (which really means “national” or “person of a nation”). Thus, fundamental populist ignorance must be the mindset of modern psychosis, because just about everyone follows the script like lambs to the slaughter.

The process does not stop with family programming. Systems (currently ad hocZionism, but that chic could rebrand) thrive on absolute control. They (the system architects) are attempting to regulate God. Ultimately God, the spiritual entity, cannot exist, because if He existed it would permit free thought and free thought does not work in programmed societies. Therefore the de facto science-atheist alliance (conspiracy?) that presumes authority is at constant loggerheads with nature. If nature is the cooperative essence of God, then regulation and proscribed order can only promote “chaos”. True anarchy (prescient order), proto-Zionism, has etched the mindset of psychosis which is man, the automaton. Zionists do at least live up to their name, for the Pharisees were the original usurpers of order. “Jesus”, it seems, died in vain.

Let me first say that I know that I have some special powers to enable comprehension of this perception I call my reality. The reason I am sure these powers are special is, thus far, I have found no other examples of them. This is not to say they are by any means unique, but I have found no evidence of them. The best analogy I can conjure is as if I am the only one who can see red. No, let me create a new colour. I shall call it winoe. The only one who can see winoe is me, in my analogy. The rest can see all other colours, as do I, but I am the only one who can see winoe. Most would say, by that token, that winoe does not exist. Please leave that sentiment on hold. We can and will return to it. For now let us imagine winoe does exist I am faced with the same task a normal sighted person has explaining the colour red to the never sighted. Do blind people think those who claim they see colours are mad? No! Those who I have met accept they have senses limitation and that is the way it is. Their world is dysfunctional to the point it is unlikely that a blind person could survive a natural life without the assistance of the sighted. With correct assistance the blind can function very well. Yet the analogy was not concerned with function. It was not concerned whether colours existed or not. It did not question the attributes of a photon cell. It was concerned with resonance. What makes red, red? The Newtonians can concoct a complicated string of techno-babble pretending to rationalise the truth, but the answer is not to be found in scientific rationalisation.

Red is colour that personifies a particular resonant frequency; as do all colours. Red in particular, though, displays emotional resonance that is beyond symbolism even when symbolically used. It is the home of the preborn and becomes the preoccupation of all involved with flesh. ”I saw red” is the common expression for an outburst of irrational anger. This is not symbolic, although it might be, but something primordial. Some may agree. Others may disagree, but I can find some common ground when discussing colour red. What has been written, thus far, about the colour red is not abnormal or unacceptable. Some would buy the pitch completely. Others would select sentiment that matches their desired belief. Winoe is a different matter. There is no common ground. Some might yearn for some succinct explanation so they could rationalise and massage the new “beyond sight” colour into their belief system. Others would reject it outright. I wish to focus on these rejecters; debunkers, “as it were”. There are two types at each end of the spectrum. One is scholarly and appreciates their perception with a no nonsense approach to what is. What does not convert to perception does not exist. This is not a malicious denial of faith, but rather a secure appreciation of ego. The other debunker type constructs his or her tailored “God complex”. If the pitch fits, then belief permits it. Nevertheless a God complex must be all knowing and all experiencing. Therefore, a colour that is beyond knowledge, beyond experience defies the God complex. This must be rejected and outlawed.

There is generally much talk about belief and truth but no common ground. Truths are always selective. Many attribute their beliefs to one type of religion or another. Because one claims they are a Muslim, does that make them a Muslim? Comparing the colour analogy, even with the infinite number of varieties (shades and so on), red evokes the same emotional resonance whether we call it carmine, rose or even pink. Or rather, the emotional resonance triggered by red does not alter. Pink might encourage lighter sentiment, a gentler and more feminine approach, but the resonance is the same. Likewise, informed and educated Muslims buy into different aspects or components of the Qur’an. They observe Mohamed and his eternal wishes. Some are more aggressive. Others are less aggressive. Some are inclined to forgive and others are not. Those who make the effort to study the Qur’an will draw equal conclusion which are unavoidable. Whether viewed a virtuous or destructive, Mohamed’s message is determined to control the follower. A true Muslim’s mindbelongs to Mohamed. There are many Muslims who would be better described as envoys of Arab nationalism. They have no common belief with Mohamed and merely manipulate their Arab status to their best advantage or in a vain attempt to become part of the in-group.

The same can be said and more so for their Christian and Jewish counterparts which make up the other followers of Mosaic Law. The major religions are occupied by identity badge followings who demonstrate little more than no belief. Pushing aside contradictory elements, there is not a single religion that vilifies self-serving. Yet, the majority of congregations seek nothing more than the elevation of self. If there was a doctrine of truth it would certainly be personified by agnosticism and perhaps atheism. Atheism does not deny the plausibility of a higher power system but rather the portrayal of God as an adjunct of the conscious and, in that way, super human. A common belief of the badge waving Muslim, Christian and Jew is that God is a grandfather who sits on a giant throne. The cornerstone of Mosaic belief systems is that man was made in the image of God and, therefore, ultimate wisdom comes with ultimate age. The truth, as the atheists will affirm, is that God was created in the image of man. Moses merely found agreeable sentiment that suited his purposes to pin on God. As no one, not a single person ever, has actually met and communicated with this smiling bearded one true God, progressive “Prophets” finding new causes have allowed the self-serving nature of man to amplify through their numerous holy texts. Therefore, by this standard, belief does have nothing to do with truth.

That is why atheism is the popular choice of the truth seeker. Those who belong to the global society’s out-group (which is the vast majority) tend to steer towards Buddhism. That is why Buddha’s faith in a deity is questioned to which end some go as far to say that he denied God. Whereas this is not true, Buddha did intimate direct prayer was pointless and that God can only be found through experience. Conveniently this discussion has come fully circle. Is Buddha saying that true belief can only come from truth and truth can only be assured as a direct result of experience? If that were so the only way to achieve absolute enlightenment would be with complete and unblemished understanding. Understanding is another word for knowledge which should be another word for truth. The corruption of truth can be found in belief.